Talk:Naomi Osaka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Number of page views in the past 30 days


Japanese expatriate sportspeople in the United States?[edit]

She is listed under the category "Japanese expatriate sportspeople in the United States". She has U.S. citizenship though so she's not an expatriate in the U.S. She should probably be removed from the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.51.115.45 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether a person gains citizenship has no bearing on their listing as an expatriate of the former country. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect -- if you drill down thru the template layers it says expatriates are citizens of a country other than the one where they reside. Since she was naturalized long ago she has citizenship in the United States as well as Japan, so she is not an expatriate. I'll remove the category. I will look for a category about the dual citizenship, though am doubtful that there would be one for something like that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
p.s. There is no category of People with dual citizenship, but I found a couple tags (at Jim Carrey) about emigrants Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Why Did This Article Change[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I read this wiki article the day before the Us Open. It stated that she was Haitian-Japanese in the first paragraph. Now it only says that she is Japanese. Why would this information change?

I too want to know why her bio was changed and her Haitian heritage removed from the 1st sentence? Your racism is showing. She identifies as a Haitian-Japanese person, so at a minimum, respect how she identifies herself and use the same choice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4F03:20B3:D165:DEC0:1D2B:C796 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't. You were directed here by a falsehood. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Representing Haiti[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Her father is Haitian and her mother Japanese. I sincerely feel that it should be said that she "Haitian - Japanese" and not just Japanese. I believe that both cultures are something to be proud about! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M&M.plt (talkcontribs) 22:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure they are something to be proud of, but she's registered in tennis as Japanese. In the early life section it already mentions her father is Haitian. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2018

Hi please correct the article on Naomi Osaka. It should state that she is a Haitian Japanese tennis player, this article does not include her Haitian ethnicity at the beginning of the article. Thank you. Dimes25 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See previous discussions further up the page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

::Which nationality you are does not depend on which citizenship you have. Here she is talking about representing Haiti: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NAuI3mn7Dc

Washington Post (September 2018) quotes her: "Japanese culture? I love everything about it. . . . America, I live here. I train in Florida. . . . And Haiti, if you’ve ever met a Haitian person, they are really positive, and literally if you’re friends with them, then they will do anything for you. That’s something that is a really good trait, and I’m really happy that my grandparents and my dad’s side of the family is like that" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/tennis/with-energy-of-a-new-yorker-japans-naomi-osaka-reaches-us-open-semifinals/2018/09/05/9e3e7034-b12e-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html?utm_term=.fbbf4843280b).
So writing that she is just Japanese-American while neglecting Haitian is biased. This wikipedia article has a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view ("All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisexpertise (talkcontribs) 04:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
--Tennisexpertise (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
-- Tennisexpertise (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Considering we just had 3 brand new users M&M.plt, Dimes25, and now you, all asking the exact same thing makes me pause to wonder if we are dealing with three people or one. If it is the same person please be advised that Wikipedia frowns GREATLY on multiple accounts used in this manner. It is already mentioned that she is from a Haitian background. But she is of Japanese nationality with United States citizenship. Also please do not keep making new topics for the same thing. Other editors will find this topic and weigh in over the next week or so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's useful to start throwing around insinuations of sockpuppetry just because more than one user happens to disagree with you. "Haitian-Japanese" was already in use in the first sentence in early March this year, and the sentence was edited back and forth many times during the Indian Wells tournament and in the weeks after. I opened a thread on it here on the talk page in April, but there wasn't much participation, despite the amount of changing going on in the article. So there is a "consensus" version but obviously a lot of people disagree with it, and now they are saying it on the talk page, with citations to back their version up. You need to take that on board, and maybe open an RfC. Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
It makes me very nervous when it's 3 brand new accounts just created today, all demanding the same exact thing. My spider-sense goes off. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Nevertheless, assume good faith is a policy. It is natural for new users to want to edit an article related to a current event, especially when it is a question of ethnicity, something so significant that major news media have it in their headlines. Especially when the page is semi-protected – newbies obviously see that and think they ought to register. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not a valid argument and don't strengthen your case. Scolaire (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually I have shown good faith. I keep answering all the queries as if they are legit. But if you think I'm not going to mention suspicious things (which these are), then you will continue to be disappointed in some of my posts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
And also the fact that the user automatically created a random user-page and is only interested in this article. Obviously doesn't strike me as a new user. Vivexdino (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post and Boston Globe use the most appropriate, concise and neutral introduction which includes all the necessary information and would please everyone, so using their style it would be: "Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a professional tennis player of Haitian-Japanese descent who was raised in the United States but plays for Japan".Tennisexpertise (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't mention descent in the lead, only nationality. She is not a Haitian national. Vivexdino (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Where is it written that information about a person's background (which in this case is a defining factor of who the person is) should not be mentioned in the lead?
  • Youtube video "Naomi Osaka answers: How Haitian and Japanese culture made her who she is today": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkX0bjOyNME ("My dad is Haitian. I grew up in a Haitian household in New York, I lived with my grandma, and my mom is Japanese and I grew up with the Japanese culture too, and if you are saying American I guess because I have lived in America I also have that too")
  • NZ Herald (New Zealand, 2 Jan, 2017): "Osaka has one of the most unlikely backgrounds on tour. She was born in Japan, raised in the United States and has been strongly influenced by Haitian culture, as her father is from the small Caribbean Island. "I guess it's an interesting mix," said Osaka. "I grew up with a mix of Japanese and Haitian culture, but we were living in New York. Every day was interesting. My grandma and father would speak Creole, my mum would cook Japanese food."" (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11775544)
-- Tennisexpertise (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

True, but off-topic. She's not a Haitian citizen. Simple. As. That. Race/ethnicity belongs in the background, not the lead. Vivexdino (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read wiki policy about lead section before commenting and lecturing other people on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Lead_section Tennisexpertise (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You've obviously misunderstood the guideline. And I see you've also now been blocked as a sock. Vivexdino (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I made this edit which I still think was a good edit, but that edit has been undone. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I like this suggestion by Tennisexpertise. I think the number of replies above likely has to do with recent attention drawn to Naomi Osaka by press coverage of the US Open controversy. I also think that claiming Naomi Osaka is simply "Japanese" as a person based on her athletic affiliation is a bit rude. If there were a woman born and raised in Croatia with European ancestry who went to Japan to train in tennis as an adult, fell in love with the county, and consequentially decided to rep Japan, would we be calling her simply "Japanese" in the first sentence? I don't want to be inflammatory but I think Naomi Osaka's name is biasing her treatment here. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
And shes lived her whole life in the United States and has US citizenship. So is she a United States/Haitian/Japanese tennis player? Her dad was born in Haiti but is he 100% Haitian? This could be argued back and forth depending on a lot of minutia details but she certainly represents Japan and is registered with the governing body of tennis as representing Japan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
And it could be said the same thing about your treatment of her based on looks. Vivexdino (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Citizenship is generally clearly defined by governments and the fact of having dual citizenship is I think noteworthy-enough for the lede. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

She’s Haitian-Japanese, please correct the page. LMacTheGr8 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Now 4 brand new accounts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@LMacTheGr8, have you not been paying attention to anything so far, or are you just choosing to be willfully be ignorant? Vivexdino (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vivexdino: seeing it's his/her first and only edit, he/she probably just didn't look to see if there was a prior discussion. Comment on content, not on contributors. Scolaire (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
This whole thread is filled with first and only edits. It's becoming an epidemic. Now we have TruthandLight6, Aafc1228, TheReelBlackSheep, and more to add to the list. Accounts created today. And they have migrated to her sister's bio. All it takes is one look from an administrator to verify if any or all are the same person and the factory would be closed, so I hope it's worth it. I've refrained from calling it to administration but if this continues too long I will. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity and race do not go into the head paragraph. It stating Japanese would be accurate because she is a Japanese citizen if I'm reading the sources correctly otherwise it would be that she's an American tennis player that represents her mother's home country of Japan.Mcelite (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Where is it stated that important information about a person's background is excluded from the head paragraph? As others have pointed out in this thread, for a long time in the head paragraph there was an information "Haitian-Japanese". Only now, when Naomi Osaka gaind worldwide attention and fame it became a problem? Tennisexpertise (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It is wiki policy that the head paragraph does not include ethnicity. Her ethnicity is explicitly cited in her early life section where it should be. No one is denying that she is half Haitian.Mcelite (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". Wiki policy clearly states: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Lead_section). And in this case it is relevant to subject's notability: 1) She herself puts equal importance on her Haitian as well Japanese background. 2) Her Haitian father has been a defining factor in her achievements (see for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Gq5OChj_o) 3) She is considered by a great number of Haitian people as one of their own (see for example a tweet by Wyclef Jean from 9 September 2018: "Naomi OSAKA Japonese Haitian blood What I have been doing with my microphone You are now making HAITI Proud with your tennis racket", https://twitter.com/wyclef/status/1038844533667246081) Tennisexpertise (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not relevant to her notability. She is notable for playing tennis and now for winning a Major. She happens to play for Japan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It is your POV. Show sources which say it is not relevant to her notability. Tennisexpertise (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. So you are saying that she is notable to wikipedia because her father lived in Haiti? Not because of her tennis? Dream on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand English and what you are writing? Sorry but all the sources here are in English. Tennisexpertise (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

i don't think anyone is arguing that Osaka is notable because of her father's nationality; i don't think anyone would interpret this guideline that way. but Osaka's ethnicity is pertinent to her notability because her ethnicity is a subject of discussion in the US and Japan. there is a whole NYT article about how Osaka's biracial status "is helping to challenge Japan’s longstanding sense of racial purity and cultural identity". i would say having a NYT article (among others) written about the fact that you are biracial makes it pretty notable, and important for a reader's understanding of her role in the world of Japanese athletics. Boomur [] 01:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
For example, Henry Ossawa Tanner's page rightfully mentions his ethnicity in the first sentence because, among the many painters of history, he is notable for being the first African-American painter to achieve international fame. Naomi Osaka is not merely one of many [insert ethnicity] to do [some thing famously]. She is the first, and that's usually considered notable. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
It needs to be what makes her notable. Unless it is as important as Jack Johnson (boxer), it does not belong in the lead. Her ethnicity does not make her notable here.
Not even Martin Luther King has his ethnicity anywhere in the lead, which is much more important to him. So definitely doesn't belong here where it doesn't matter at all. Vivexdino (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
again, i do not know how you could interpret the guideline as meaning that a person needs to be notable based solely on their ethnicity in order for it to be mentioned in the lead. i cannot think of a single person who fits that criterion; by your logic the guideline is nonsense. also, here and elsewhere you've brought up other individuals with notable ethnicities that go unmentioned in their leads, but those individuals are not the topic of this discussion. "x page does it this way, so this page must follow" is not a sufficient argument for establishing consensus. Boomur [] 13:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
It is part of wiki policy. You need to mention why her ethnicity is important, the way Jack Johnson (boxer) does. This has been discussed extensively. Vivexdino (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
are you denying that the importance of her ethnicity has been asserted by the NYT article about it, or the Washington Post article mentioned further down this thread? Boomur [] 15:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to include it, you need to write why it makes it notable. How many times does this need to be repeated? Vivexdino (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

She is the first Japanese and Haitian Tennis player to win a Grand Slam singles tournament, defeating Serena Williams in the final of the 2018 US Open.[5] Osaka has reached a career-high world ranking of No. 7. 2601:643:8200:9999:E4FB:1E1E:2C48:6F96 (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done Unknown what is wanted here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday here on Wikipedia it stated she was a Haitian-Japanese tennis player. Now that she's famous Wikipedia has edited out her Haitian heritage!! Stating that she's only Japanese. Stop trying to filter out black greatness. You can't stop us!!! TheReelBlackSheep (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any suggested edit to make? This has been extensively discussed over and over again. She has Haitian ethnicity. Anything new? Vivexdino (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
And the day before it didn't so what's your point? Goodness, talk about racial bias. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why this is still an issue. A ton of users believe that her Haitian half should be mentioned. Why? Because its notable. They've provided sources as to how her ancestry is notable in regards to her position as a tennis player representing Japan. Her biracial makeup is an ongoing discussion in Japan in regards to societal acceptance of "hafus". That by itself makes this the exception to the rule of ethnicity generally not being included in the lead. The word 'generally' as a qualifier in this rule means exceptions can be made. Like the example of Henry Ossawa Tanner or Jero. Ms Osaka's country representation in sports (pushed by her father) was for financial reasons (JTA was more promising than USTA). Ms Osaka herself clearly identifies as both proudly Japanese and Haitian and has corrected media when her ancestry/heritage isn't properly referenced. Furthermore, her formative years were in the US with her Haitian relatives. I've made a couple of good faith edits which I've believed accurately represented Ms Osaka only to be repeatedly undone. Illogical if you ask me. Ghostreconnaissance (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


Her Haitian heritage is acknowledged and noted in her article. However, she is not a Haitian citizen and she is representing Japan.Mcelite (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Your reply shows that you're either not comprehending the point so many users are trying to make or you're willfully ignoring it. The issue is whether or not her ethnicity is notable enough to warrant being mentioned in the lead, not if its mentioned in the article itself. The latter is a given. The former seems to be a hot button. Those in favor including myself believe it does and have expressed why. Wikipedia specifically states the parameters for having certain contextual info in leads. I believe this case fits that bill. I've yet to hear a convincing counterpoint other than her not being a Haitian citizen which is irrelevant to the original point in the first place. Everyone knows she represents Japan, literally no one is disputing that. Ghostreconnaissance (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not what your edits are showing. What exactly are you trying to add to the lead? Do you have any specific sentence or paragraph in mind that makes her ethnicity more notable than the likes of Harriet Tubman, Jessica Jung, Ryan Higa, or Denzel Washington? Please enlighten us. Vivexdino (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
It is notable that she is representing Japan because that is whom she chose to represent her mother's country. Therefore yes that is more notable than mentioning her heritage in the lead paragraph. Yes she has acknowledged her Haitian heritage, however at the same time she represents Japan. In no way is her Haitian heritage ignored. Peace outMcelite (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Another problem is sourcing. The press is all over the map on this. While it looks like Japanese is the most prevalent, she has been described as a tennis player as Japanese, Japanese-American, American-Japanese, Haitian-Japanese, Hatian-American-Japanese and even Haitiano-Japanese in some Haiti press. Her father is often called Haitian-American. He was born in Haiti but do we know if he is 100% Haitian himself? It is a stew and in my opinion more trouble than it's worth in the lead. The way it is written now "Naomi Osaka is a professional tennis player representing Japan" is accurate and doesn't cause any problems that will lead to alphabet soup edit wars. I will change the second sentence to a non-inflammatory version also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"but do we know if he is 100% Haitian himself". This sentence just shows that you don't have idea what is being discussed here and are here on this page just for trolling and have an agenda. Or maybe you can't even read simple English with understanding? All the issues (Haiti, Japan, American) are important in her life and career and neglecting it violates NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Lead_section). Somebody stated there "unless it is relevant to the subject's notability" not just for fun, but for that kind of complicated biographical issues, where genealogy of the subject is discussed extensively in many articles about her and there is a lot of confusion and bias in the media towards stating that only Japan/being Japanese is relevant to her notability (see youtube video: "Naomi Osaka's Blackness ERASED by Media US Open 2018", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Gq5OChj_o). Tennisexpertise (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't condone all the socking that's going on here, but I do note that The Washington Post is running a headline today, Japanese, Haitian, and now a Grand Slam winner: Naomi Osaka’s historic journey to the U.S. Open. So I don't think mentioning the dual ethnicity in the article is unreasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Her heritage is getting coverage meaningfully related to her notability, in addition to the sources quoted above, we have the New York Times stating "Her victory sparked celebrations across the country and, because she is half Haitian-American, started challenging Japan’s conservative pure-blood definition of ethnicity.". [1] Such comments are numerous and appear signficant, and I lean toward including a mention of her ethnicity as a result. --joe deckertalk 19:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Decker: I'm a bit confused here. It is included extensively in her personal section so no one is arguing that. The question is about the lead. Various sources call her Japanese, Japanese-American, American-Haitian-Japanese, Haitian-Japanese... it's all over the map. That's pertinent for her personal section but not for the lead. We also have this article and [this. What to put in the lead is going to be very tough to source. I do think it best to keep it to her personal section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, it already included her ethnicity. What kind of mention did you have in mind about including, exactly? Vivexdino (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I meant in the lead. Sorry for any confusion. It is my judgment that the coverage I have seen of her ethnicity, and how that is being received in Japan and elsewhere is broad enough to warrant it. *shrug* --joe deckertalk 19:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion that we should include that she is "Haitian-Japanese". I think that it is not enough to just say that her father is Haitian. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I still think mentioning that she's Haitian in the lead paragraph isn't notable. She is Japan's first champion that's notable besides here winning her Grand Slam at the age of 20. I feel this whole thing has been blow up even more by one editor making ghost accountants on a mission because they believe her Haitian heritage is being denied when it isn't. If it was being denied it wouldn't even be mentioned in the article. That's what I'm seeing here.Mcelite (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I find aspects of ethnicity as well as aspects of citizenship of importance. And I think it is simple enough to state these. For instance Osaka is of Haitian-Japanese ethnicity and she holds dual US-Japanese citizenship. That is a very short sentence. I don't think this should be an issue. These are related concerns (ethnicity and citizenship) and a brief sentence is all it takes to clarify this for the reader. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
No one is saying not to mention her ethnicity. In fact I included all the terms used to describe her in her personal section. But the lead section seems out of place for it, especially since the exact phrasing is different depending on the source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
You refer to "exact phrasing" but aren't we often paraphrasing? Are there significant differences in the wording found in different sources? Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
As to whether she is Japanese, Japanese-American, Haitian-Japanese, or Haitian-American-Japanese... yes that's significant. And that's best handled under her personal section where we can go into more details on the situation. It's really not best for the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It is still an issue because of the widespread discussion on social media about the blatant racism on Wikipedia that has removed her Haitian heritage to make her appear Asian instead. She wins, and now she is no longer African American? Obviously editors here have little sensitivity to issues of culture and ethnicity. And the argument that that info belongs in another paragraph is no excuse. Google Osaka's own comments on this issue to educate yourselves! Judeberman (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

We follow what the sources say, not social media. You're the one making this about race. Vivexdino (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Vivexdino, I find it disingenuous for you to act like an unbiased party when your contribution history shows a clear bias towards all things Japanese. I think that her Haitian heritage is notable and belongs in the lead because it is central to her personal identity. It seems that some here simply want to minimize the part of Osaka's heritage that they find less palatable. Ropo153 (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Have you not been following the discussion at all so far? What does me being an anime fan and editing Japanese culture got to do with anything? So you're just gonna call me a weaboo and not follow Wikipedia guidelines? Vivexdino (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't call you a weeboo, I don't believe in disparaging people for their personal interests. I just find it hypocritical for you to accuse someone else of having bias when I doubt you would have had any interest in this article if it were not for the subject's Japanese heritage. Ropo153 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I did not accuse anyone of having bias. You are seeing things that aren't there. Vivexdino (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Judeberman and Tennisexpertise this isn't about racism at all. Since she is an American citizen then yes she can be categorized as African American if she wasn't an American citizen then NO. I'm beginning to believe both of you are supporters of the One Drop Rule which is a problem. I'm concerned that if things were reversed and her Japanese heritage was the focus of this discussion instead of her Haitian heritage that you wouldn't be going to war and screaming racism. She is representing Japan not Haiti and not the U.S. so no I don't believe her heritage should be mentioned in the lead paragraph. She is obviously proud of being half Haitian, but at the same time I'm not in strong favor of her heritage being the focus in the lead paragraph.Mcelite (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Mcelite, we're not talking about one drop here, were talking about HALF of her heritage. I haven't seen a single person object to including her Japanese heritage so your argument is just a straw man. Ropo153 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
One Drop Rule just in case you're not American and don't get it. Obviously you didn't read that I'm concerned that if her Japanese heritage was the discussion some of ones screaming racism wouldn't be interested in this conversation.Mcelite (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
As a biracial American I am more than familiar with the one drop rule, thank you. I read your concern but I've seen no evidence of anybody suggesting that her Japanese heritage be omitted from the the lead, so I think your argument is a straw man. However, because you brought it up: since you don't you care if her Haitian heritage is removed, how are you any better than someone who wouldn't care if her Japanese heritage was removed? Ropo153 (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We need some sort of clear proposal here, because at the moment it’s a complete mess to see what this discussion is trying to achieve.Tvx1 01:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ropo153 I think this is where things are getting lost her heritage is not in the lead. Her citizenship is in the lead because it is notable especially because she is the first Japanese player to win at the U.S. Open. Her heritage itself isn't what's major. I would never support her heritage being removed from the article.Mcelite (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
They don't have an exact proposal on what to put. Vivexdino (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion aside, I must say I find the unfounded sockpuppet accusation absolutely hilarious. Thanks guys. Its good to know that users such as myself get scarlet lettered for showing interest in particular articles and attempting to engage in discourse. Ghostreconnaissance (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually administration confirmed a banned sockpuppet, but many brand new editors came here from an incorrect twitter and instagram post. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to the accusation levied against me. Its completely unfounded. But I digress so that I don't derail this talkpage. We can discuss this accusation further on the "investigation" talkpage if you so wish. Ghostreconnaissance (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, no problem. I think that investigation stems from many of my own suspicions. A couple were sockpuppets, but we found out later that many brand new users were directed here by lies put out on twitter and instagram. You may have just been caught in the rush. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Note - I posted on that investigation and let them know that some out-of-context inflammatory twitter and instagram postings are the likely reason that we have a stampede of single-post brand new editors to this article. I hope that will help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Observation - What may have to happen is after the die-down of the twitter/instagram falsehood fades away, since nothing serious can be done with that around our necks, we'll have to have a pow-wow on the best language to use in the lead. For years this article simply said Japanese tennis player, but in the last year it has flipped-flopped to many different incarnations. Right now we are having to remove Japanese-American, Haitian-Japanese, Haitian-American-Japanese, different orders, you name it. It's not like any of the changes are wrong, but everyone wants something different, and the sources don't help much because they are all different too. It's a royal headache. The lead is pretty generic and safe as it stands today but for all I know its final resting place could be a professional Haitian-Japanese-American tennis player who represents Japan, or it could stay as is and we let the personal section explain the details. I don't know, but I do know we can't do anything in the atmosphere created by the directed social media accounts. Luckily at wikipedia we can wait it out and then do our best to arrive at a good fit for the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the lead paragraph is fine it's neutral it's specifically stating that she is a Japanese citizen representing Japan. I think too many people assumed the sentences were referring to her race, and not her nationality. The way it is written should help calm down those that believed her Haitian heritage was being ignored.Mcelite (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems like the amount of newly-created, single-edit accounts are dying down. Her sister's page isn't getting as much action, either. Vivexdino (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I hope so, but I just got one on my own talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources / Coverage 2018.09[edit]

  • "Naomi Osaka’s Breakthrough Game : The 20-year-old is poised to burst into the top tier of women’s tennis. Can she also burst Japan’s expectations of what it means to be Japanese?" https://nyti.ms/2BFe4eB -- with a lot of content on her early life. --178.132.29.134 (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Japanese family[edit]

Her Japanese family has been in the Japanese news with this win, so expansion can be done to add family details. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Using the fact that she's listed with the IPA as playing for Japan shouldn't negate her complicated Biography[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tennisexpertise (talk) has given numerous examples and cited sources in which She refers to herself as a Hatian and living a significant part of her formative years in America. This has to be addressed in the 1st paragraph with objectivity, not with a biased view against having a complicated life history for the sake of simplicity. The world is becoming ever more complicated. We'll have to keep up in order to remain relevant.shiznaw (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

i mentioned this in a thread above, but as Tennisexpertise mentioned, MOS:LEADBIO states "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." i would argue that Osaka's haitian ethnicity/biracial identity is relevant to her notability; there is a New York Times article how Osaka "is helping to challenge Japan’s longstanding sense of racial purity and cultural identity". it was also enough to warrant a section in the Indian Express article about her win, and a Sydney Herald article. it seems clear to me that her ethnicity is highly notable in context, and of enough interest to a general audience that it would deserve a mention in the lead. Boomur [] 01:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, with how much has gone on about this topic, and given how hostile some of the threads above have gotten, maybe this should go to some kind of dispute resolution. There's basically 5 posts from Tennis and 5 posts from Fyunck saying the same thing while the rest of us are being accused of being Tennis's sockpuppets. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Her ethnicity/race is an important part of her, sure, but that's not why she is WP:NOTABLE, her tennis career is. For example, the African-American ethnicity of Harriet Tubman, the Korean ethnicity of Jessica Jung, or the Japanese ethnicity of Ryan Higa, is an even more important part of them, but it's not mentioned anywhere in their leads. If her ethnicity needs to be mentioned, it should be in a separate paragraph or sentence explaining why, not as part of her nationality/citizenship. Vivexdino (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
BA candidate.svg Weak oppose I don't know if I agree with using why to undermine the mention of her heritage and nationality here considering, as Boomur indicated, MOS:LEADBIO specifically indicates the importance of relevance ("unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."). But even then, I'll make the argument that her representation of Japan, by that same token, isn't WP:NOTABLE either. It's either/or: if we're claiming her representation of Japan as WP:NOTABLE, then the many equal references to her Haitian heritage e.g. Washington Post among others listed above equally indicate that her Haitian heritage is a factor contributing to her notability. I don't mind being corrected; I just don't see how one can be excluded while still noting the other. Eganist (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Her representing Japan is notable for the same reason Serena Williams representing the U.S. is notable. Vivexdino (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Seconded. As I was writing my comment below, someone again removed the reference to Osaka’s Haitian background. I don’t want to start an edit war, so how do we start a dispute resolution process? —ThorstenNY (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
There sure is a lot to untangle here: citizenship, residency, ethnicity, national team affiliation — all different but related properties — and how they all relate to Osaka’s notability. I’m mostly okay with the latest version as of 21:53, 9 September 2018‎ (“of Haitian and Japanese heritage representing Japan”) — except that this omits Osaka’s American citizenship (and almost life-long residency), which probably should be mentioned as per WP:MOS/Biography#Context. Also, “heritage” seems a bit vague. What’s described here is Osaka’s ethnic heritage. But there is also cultural heritage, and Ms. Osaka’s arguably is partially to largely American. But we clearly know: ethnicity (Haitian and Japanese), citizenship (U.S. and Japanese), national team affiliation (Japan.) I think mentioning all three aspects (which have all informed, if not outright motivated, major reporting) is less bad than omitting any. —ThorstenNY (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, again it's not so clear. One, are you talking about the article or specifically the lead? Also, I assume you are aware that censuses such as in the USA or Canada allow for the ethnicity of American or Canadian. The ethnicity of French for example come from a melting pot of dozens of older ethnicities. So her ethnicity is also American-Haitian-Japanese for those are advocating for such things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Please keep this conversation in the Representing Haiti section so editors do not have to keep going back and forth. Thank you.Mcelite (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what Fyunck is talking about, but it's clear to the rest of us that Naomi's ethnicity is Haitian and Japanese. Her formative years were spent in America while She was born in Japan, so her Nationality is Japanese and American. It's also clear to many here that her ethnicity is central to her story and a significant part as to why she's received as much fame as She has today, not solely because She's a ranked Tennis Player. We need to move forward and get consensus while leaving the others entrenched in their views behind. Agreed? shiznaw (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Per sourcing you are absolutely wrong. Her ethnicity has been described in many ways other than Haitian and Japanese, and it's sourced in the article. It is not central to her story but it is part of her story, hence the reason we DO have it in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Fyunck(click) (talk) - Why are you striking out valued and thoughtful responses on this Talk Page?
A blocked sockpuppet's comments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ethnicity[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Haitian - Japanese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:C002:D43:E591:70DC:8C8:BEDA (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed her dual citizenship and updated accordingly.[edit]

Since it seems most of the controversy here surrounds descent v. citizenship, I updated the page with a mainstream media reference to her Haitian citizenship:

and a local media reference to the fact that she's the first Haitian citizen to win.

This should resolve the Haitian citizen v. descendant debate that's been raging on here. Eganist (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I'm unable to read. She's a DS of US and JP, not US and Haiti. Reverted my own change. Eganist (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Her full heritage contributes to why she is WP:NOTABLE[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Considering her dual-heritage is more widely discussed than her dual-US/JP citizenship and equally as discussed in the press circuit as her playing specifically under the Japanese flag, it comes across to many as disparaging half of her heritage by omitting such a crucial fact from the initial summary, especially when considering she's been strongly on the record (https://www.ebony.com/news-views/naomi-osaka-haitian-australian-open) fact-checking journalists who neglect half of her heritage. If the player herself actively and vocally represents both sides of her ancestry (both Haitian and Japanese) when playing, then even if she's playing under the Japanese flag, it's clear she's representing multiple groups during competition play; this should be acknowledged as such. See preceding reference and also the video interview referenced therein. Eganist (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Idea: My suggestion is to edit the opening to read "Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a professional tennis player who officially represents Japan internationally in addition to representing the people of both Haiti and Japan" while citing the claim with <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.ebony.com/news-views/naomi-osaka-haitian-australian-open|title=Tell ‘Em! Tennis Player Checks Reporter for Neglecting to Mention Her Haitian Heritage|access-date=2018-09-11|language=en}}</ref> or any other reference to the Australian Open interview after her match with Ashleigh Barty. Considering we have her on the record as representing both peoples, I'm seeking WP:CONSENSUS via talk/discussion for this edit just to make the change bulletproof prior to making it. Thoughts? Comments? (Editors/Admins, am I doing this right? Eganist (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Her heritage is discussed and it's why it's mentioned in the article. It has no bearing at all as to why she is notable. She could be from Mars and be a notable tennis player. She could wash dishes and wouldn't be notable as being Haitian, Japanese, or American. And when you say widely discussed it is also widely discussed that she is Japanese and American-Haitian-Japanese, and Japanese-American... not just Haitian-Japanese. What would we use since it's a mess? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose  - We use it because she uses it consistently and actively flags journalists who neglect it, as cited above, confirming the specific group of people she represents. Nobody here can deny her the right to represent a group other than the group being represented, and as neither you or I are Haitian and considering the amount of Haitian local news coverage (https://haitiantimes.com/2018/09/09/3-things-to-know-about-naomi-osaka/), we cannot tell either her or the world that she doesn't represent Haitians (not Haiti, mind you, but the Haitian peoples). It's also a terrible look to deny this because "it's a mess" -- aside from demeaning a person's heritage for the sake of a clean wikipedia page, avoiding a mess is the purpose of the talk page, to figure out the best way to convey the message that respects her vocal representation of two peoples, and I'd like to think considering her level of passion on the topic of representing two peoples when the rules of the sport only permit representation of one flag that the above proposed change does a decent job, but I'm open to alternative edits that don't disparage her choice considering it's quite apparent she herself views her play as being representative of Haitians and Japanese peoples, not just one or the other. As an aside, she had the option of playing on behalf of Haiti as well (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/08/sport/naomi-osaka-serena-williams-us-open-tennis-int-spt/index.html) but her father ultimately chose Japan for the opportunities rather than for any particular goal of representation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/10/japanese-haitian-and-now-a-grand-slam-winner-naomi-osakas-historic-journey-to-the-u-s-open/?utm_term=.2d62a3d6f944). Seriously though: it's a bad look to avoid discussing who she truly represents in the opening just because "it's a mess." Thoughts? Comments? Editors/Admins, am I doing this right? Eganist (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Added detail: in the Haitian Times reference, it's noted that it was her Haitian father, Leonard Maxime Francois, who signed her up to represent the Japanese flag for the opportunities opened (https://haitiantimes.com/2018/09/09/3-things-to-know-about-naomi-osaka/) and that Naomi even considers herself closer to her dual Japanese/Haitian heritage than her American nationality. Eganist (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I ask again since she is in the press with all those different nationalities listed, what would we use? In the USA her father is often called Haitian-American. She is not notable for her ethnicity, but it is not trivial either. It does belong in the article, and it is in detail in her personal section. The lead would be a summary of that but it seems impossible because she has so many titles we'd have to list them all again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Pointing back to my original suggestion, "Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a professional tennis player who officially represents Japan internationally in addition to representing the people of both Haiti and Japan" while citing the claim with <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.ebony.com/news-views/naomi-osaka-haitian-australian-open|title=Tell ‘Em! Tennis Player Checks Reporter for Neglecting to Mention Her Haitian Heritage|access-date=2018-09-11|language=en}}</ref> -- I'm open to any change to this theme. There's no need to specifically express "Haitian-Japanese-American" or any variant or subset thereof; just merely conveying that she actively represents the Haitian and Japanese peoples is sufficient. Another idea might be "Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a professional tennis player on behalf of the nation of Japan as well as the people of both Haiti and Japan." or perhaps "is a professional tennis player on behalf of the nation of Japan as well as the people of Haiti." It seems condensed enough, and the reason I'm so dead-set on it is because she ardently makes a point of pushing that she does not ever just represent one group, so a top-line mention of just one represented group is in fact a mis-representation. Thoughts? Comments? Editors/Admins, am I doing this right? Eganist (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Well that would get a Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose  from me. She is more Japanese-American than Haitian-American, but I don't want that either. She is also American-Haitian-Japanese, and just Japanese since that's where she was born. All those can be easily sourced, but again it causes problems. I think it is best to leave it as is and explain things in detail in her personal section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose  Second opinion requested - Wait, I don't understand. How does the assertion "She is more Japanese-American than Haitian-American" stand? She's 50% Haitian via her father, 50% Japanese via her mother, and was born in America. She herself has said “I don’t necessarily feel like I’m American. I wouldn’t know what that feels like.”here. Secondly, considering America is her place of birth, why are you consistently putting "American" anywhere other than the end? By her own admission and assertion, she's either Haitian-Japanese, Japanese-Haitian, or either of those plus "-American" given that America is her place of birth. Eganist (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
She was born in Japan and plays for Japan, and has lived most of her life in America. And how I would put it doesn't really matter. What matters are the facts and the sources. The facts are she was born in Japan and plays professional tennis for Japan. She was raised in the USA and lives in the USA to this day. Her mother is Japanese and her father is Haitian-American. She has dual Japanese and United States citizenship. The sources are all over the map on what to call her nationally/ethnically, etc... so here we are in a quagmire with twitter and instagram causing all kinds of mayhem with their fabricated stories. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Why do you keep calling her father Haitian-American? Her father is no more Haitian-American than her mother is Japanese-American, but you don't seem to be giving them the same treatment because it's convenient to your argument. He is of Haitian descent and he was born in Haiti - most people would refer to such a person as Haitian. Stop trying to dither his ethnicity, it's just plain offensive. Ropo153 (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ropo153: The sources I was reading called him that, such as here, so stop the "offensive" baloney. Some also call him Haitian, but I have to use something. My understanding is he has United States citizenship and he lives here. If the same goes for her mom she could be referred to as Japanese-American. Do we know about her citizenship? If someone from France moves to the USA as a baby and becomes a citizen and a doctor, I would refer to her as simply American and nothing else. I would say she was born in France though, so french ancestry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Looking at some other articles dealing with comparable cases like Michael Chang or Vania King it seems we generally prefer to limit the nationality in the lead sentence to the one they officially represent. In this case the player in question is registered with the Japanese tennis federation and as a results represents Japan in international competitions like the Fed Cup, Hopman Cup and will probably do so at the Olympics (the next of which coincidentally takes place in the country she represents) and is equally associated with that nationality and its flag in any other event. It thus makes perfect sense to stick to Japanese in the lead sentence.Tvx1 22:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This talk page is non-navigable now[edit]

With few seeming to care to keep things in the same thread it's really really hard to find conversations anymore. It's utterly a mess. Either we have clones calling clones, or someone posted on the web to flood this page with nasty and repetitive comments and edit-requests. I wish something could be done about it. Sigh. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite a ways distinct from the other commentators, but I really think this particular comment seems to dismiss the primary concern. Why the preoccupation with whether something's a mess, be it the talk page or the article itself? As an example, I proposed a specific change which I think warrants some amount of discussion considering the sheer volume of public discussion about it (beyond just the talk page--I cited several external references to this end); can we get back to that and refine/revise/improve it if possible? Looking forward to working with you on this. Eganist (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Why the preoccupation of whether the talk page and article is a mess? I can't believe I read that so no comment on that. The other point does not belong here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll stop dignifying the deflection. I'll focus on the section I opened above and any other related sections on the topic of accurately addressing the groups she represents during gameplay. Eganist (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I did find one of the culprits in the flood of one-time brand new posters. An Instagram post! berating wikipedia and all who edit here. Of course it's a lie if you look back at the page history, but an out-of-context post on Instagram will do that. I also see that the misinformation may have originated on twitter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I'm here because I looked up Naomi Osaka after news reports of the US Open claiming she was just "Japanese" when she didn't look like she was only of Asian descent to me, and I felt rather irritated that the lead of this article (at the time) also just called her "Japanese" before clarifying that she's biracial with dual citizenship and it's clearly more complicated than that. I never saw any social media posts about this issue. My interest in this is as an Asian American who's tired of people with Asian ties being seen solely as Asians from Asia. Incidentally, I'm not terribly unhappy with the current language of "a player representing Japan/first player of that nation" although I think I'd prefer if the first sentence left it at "tennis player" and the second sentence said "first player representing Japan" as I think that's a less awkward way to make it clear it's indicating athletic affiliation. (PS: My edit history would be a bit longer but my ip changed recently when I got a new router.) 96.41.225.223 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Your concerns were already addressed before this player came up. Neither Michael Chang, nor Vania King are introduced as a Taiwanese tennis player and Apollo Anton Ohno is not introduced as a Japanese ice skater.Tvx1 21:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
When I arrived here, the lead was "Japanese". I don't want to crawl through the hundreds of edits to find the one that changed it, but this is what I saw. I believe Fyunck changed the first two sentences so that she is not referred to as a "Japanese professional tennis player" and I'm happy about that. Similar language still persists on her sister's page, but lest the drama spread to that page, I figured I should leave it be for now. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, I don't think the three American examples are equatable to this case. First, "Japanese" is an ethnic descriptor as well as a denonym in a way that's far more direct than the equation of "American" with either whiteness or First Nations affiliation. (This is true both linguistically and culturally: prominent mainstream Japanese politicians will openly oppose immigration saying that the Japanese identity is both cultural and racial. In fact, there's a link somewhere on this talk page discussing how Naomi's challenging these notions in Japan.) Second, in Naomi Osaka's case, a variety of other factors make "Japanese" intended as a sports affiliation a misleading statement likely to be misread as Japanese (ethnically+nationally), from her utterly Japanese name to the relative absence of indications to the contrary in the first-glance impression of this article. Anyway, as I said, the current language is much better, but I wanted to argue against what I saw as a false equation.

96.41.225.223 (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

How could Japanese be misread here in any way? She represents the Japanese national teams in this sport, she does have Japanese ethnicity and she has had Japanese nationality for all her life. Japanese is correct in this case no matter what definition one goes by.Tvx1 07:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Because, as I said in my original complaint, it's incomplete. Japanese is only half of the story in everything but athletic representation: she's ethnically half Haitian and she holds dual US citizenship. To anyone who doesn't read "Japanese" as an athletic affiliation (which is probably a substantial proportion of readers, including myself, as I wasn't aware athletic affiliation existed until this talk page) it looks like a claim that she is one thing and, by omission, not anything else (or you would've mentioned that, right?). And now the lead is "Japanese" twice over thanks to GiantSnowman. Ugh. I only take comfort in knowing that this is almost certainly not the final iteration of the lead. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I archived a bunch of these pointless edit requests. Hope that helps the navigability of this page.Tvx1 23:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Osaka[edit]

Before Naomi Osaka won NY Grand Slam, Wikipedia has described her as a “Haitian-Japanese tennis player”. Two days later it was changed to “a professional tennis player representing Japan”. Why this sudden change? As a Haitian-American journalist, it has been my experience that anytime Haiti is projected through the lenses of posotiveness, someone -by omission it bu commission- decides to erase it or transform it to “something” else. Worse, Wikipedia has blocked her page from any edit. I’m reiterating my question -rhetoric or not-: why the change? Jean Jean-Pierre Jjeanpierre1 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's just no true. It stated simply Japanese long before she won the US Open. Someone added Haitian at a point during the tournament and someone else reverted that. The reason it was removed is that she doesn't hold, nor has ever held Haitian citizenship or nationality.Tvx1 21:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Multiple requests[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why do editors keep deleting Osaka's Haitian heritage from the article's introduction?[edit]

I'm very disappointed to see repeated attempts to erase Osaka's Haitian identity from the introduction. Osaka was born to a Haitian father and Japanese mother. She only spent a few years in Japan and was raised in Broward County in Florida, a location known for being predominantly influenced by Haitian culture. I do not want to impute any nefarious motives to those who keep erasing this notable fact. Please desist and let the facts stand. See this Washington Post article for details - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/10/japanese-haitian-and-now-a-grand-slam-winner-naomi-osakas-historic-journey-to-the-u-s-open/?utm_term=.3e2eb3b0a498. Kunkuru (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You know there is more to an article than its introduction. Her Haitian heritage is adequately dealt with in the appropriate section. I really wish that people would read more than just the lead of an article. Putting Haitian-Japanese in the introduction is misleading since it would put two completely different concepts (citizenship/nationality and heritage) at apparent par even though they aren't in any way. Moreover that would be completely ignorant of her American citizenship/nationality which she has held her whole life just like her Japanese one. As a dual citizen she could pick between two countries to officially represent (e.g. in the Fed Cup, Hopman Cup and Olympics) and here father chose Japan for her and her sister Mari. It thus makes sense to limit ourselves to using just Japanese in the lead.Tvx1 22:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Lede[edit]

She represents Japan, she holds Japanese nationality - for the purposes of the lede (and taking into account WP:OPENPARA) she is Japanese. The Haitian/American elements of her heritage/upbringing are not relevant in the lede. That should be covered in a 'Personal life' paragraph. GiantSnowman 16:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your last edit. You removed the categories calling her American or Haitian saying there is no evidence or source stating she has those citizenships but the Personal and family section calls her an American citizen. The Time source mentions it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.231.26 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For your attention[edit]

Any further editprotected requests asking to add "Haitian-Japanese" to the lead of the article may and will be rolled back on sight as disruptive. @Fyunck(click): - hopefully this will help Fish+Karate 09:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've hatted all the repetitive requests to make the talk page less manic. Fish+Karate 10:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Standard wording is 'Japanese tennis player' not 'tennis player who represents Japan' or similar. GiantSnowman 12:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Please read the discussion under "This talk page is non-navigable now" for issues with the word "Japanese". 96.41.225.223 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Fish and karate, I would like to request that we stick something like "of Haitian-Japanese descent" in the lead. Are you going to roll me back now? ;) Joe Decker, Bus stop, it seems to me that y'all agreed that there was plenty of sourcing to warrant this. GiantSnowman, I don't know what the guidelines say (and I don't care much, really) but I agree with you. That tennis players would "represent" something is sporadically and temporarily; ethnicity and whatnot is ongoing. That Osaka is Haitian-Japanese-American is of huge importance apparently to many people and it's recognized in all kinds of articles in the news; what the tennis guidelines have to say about that is of little interest to me, and they certainly shouldn't dictate uniformly what is important for whom. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Tennis Project Guidelines, as far as I know, say nothing about such things. I think GiantSnowman was simply saying what is normally done. I think actually the tennis articles have all kinds of different things done with nationality. Hers is just a complex one since sources give us Japanese-American, Japanese, Haitian-Japanese, and Haitian-Japanese-American. It's tough to know what is best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Despite not having Haitian citizenship or nationality wouldn't she be of Haitian ethnicity or of Haitian extraction? The majority of Haitians are black and the father of Naomi Osaka is no exception. By way of contrast most Japanese are not black and not even most citizens of the United States are black. Naomi Osaka shares identities with various groups of people. I think an argument can be made for mentioning each of these groups even in the lede of the article. I think a fairly compact sentence can allude to identities based on citizenship as well as ethnicity. Many sources address the several identities embodied in Naomi Osaka. Bus stop (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed extensively above. Each one of these points has been literally already addressed. Vivexdino (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, and basically shut down with not much of an argument that I can find. Literally. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo[edit]

Before raising this sensitive matter, I un-hid the many closed discussions on this page, and searched for "photo" and "image"—neither of which found any previous mention. I therefore presume it's OK to open this new section.

Since Naomi Osaka's Sept. 8 victory in the women's final of the U.S. Open, average daily views of her Wikipedia page have dramatically increased, peaking the next day at 872,064. Concurrently, online criticism has emerged as to Wikipedia's treatment of her race, some of it focusing on our Infobox image. I wish to address the latter specific issue only.

The objections are typified by blogger Douglas V. Gibbs's Sept. 12 post, "Why was Wikipedia Racist Towards Naomi Osaka?" I do not submit this as a prospective reference in our article, given that it is not WP:RS, but solely to encapsulate the argument. Gibbs offers a screencap reproducing Wikipedia's lead and Infobox image Before Winning and After Winning, respectively. He adds captions noting, correctly I believe, that our image before winning "shows her as darker skinned" and after winning, "Suddenly, she's lighter skinned."

Even before reading Gibbs's blog, I became concerned enough by similar criticism that I changed the image back to the more recent photo from 2017 that, as stated in my edit summary, "better represents her present appearance than does one from 2015." Twenty-five minutes later, my edit was reverted, with the explanation that "Recent is not always better, previous photo was more clear and high quality. We also have some from 2018."

I invite discussion by other editors, with the goal of forming consensus as to which of the 42 images in our Wikimedia Commons repository would best represent Ms. Osaka and, at the same time, neutralize accusations of racism. KalHolmann (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Goodness I hate political correctness and the term racist thrown around so casually these days. That aside there is no question that your photo was inferior in quality and lighting (as is), not that what is there now is the best. What is generally wanted in the infobox is a shoulder and head shot looking slightly to the left from our perspective. Then a few pics throughout the article showing her backhand, forehand, serve, and volley. Remember also that the viewership will die down to normal in a few months, especially after the inflammatory social media posts wane. I will endeavor to fix your suggestion so it would be appropriate for the article and see how it turns out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: I made it more infobox friendly. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Why is it that when I politely ask for discussion to form consensus, you jump in, make a snarky comment about political correctness and the term racist being thrown around casually, and assume command? I realize you're the top editor of this article with 20.3% of the total. But please give other editors a chance to weigh in before single-handedly taking charge as usual. This page is not your personal fiefdom. KalHolmann (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You realize I wasn't speaking of you, I was speaking of bloggers and their opinions. Sorry if that wasn't clear. You bringing it up here is fine, and it's why I took it to heart to try and fix your suggestion (which I did). No comment on that or is only my taking charge and trying to help an issue? That's cool I'm 20% of the total. I wonder how they figure that out? Considering how many times I had to correct her charts to tennis project guidelines and remove improper posts it's not surprising, but when I scroll through the actual edits made by everyone my total looks tiny. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I honestly think this current photo is the best photo of her for the info box that we have access to. We need to make sure we can always use the best picture of her whether she has a tan or not. People are too sensitive and always jump to conclusions and I'm a minority saying this.Mcelite (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Thanks for bringing this up KalHolmann. We have photos also from 2018 that could be cropped. The current photo looks okay though. Claiming photos are racist is indeed pretty desperate however. Vivexdino (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Before uploading this pic I looked through wikimedia commons and public domain flickr and didn't really see any good head-shot pics I could use. I thought there might be a lot more but they were all protected photos we couldn't use. That's why I circled back to KalHolmann's original photo suggestion and thought maybe it could work fine if it was cropped and not so dark. I do some photo editing part-time so I took it on myself to download the original and fix it as best I could in a short time. Of course that will add to my 20.3% of edits but I took a chance that no one would hold that against me. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Makes sense. Vivexdino (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Please help me understand. Why is it that the cropped image you uploaded today to Wikimedia Commons and inserted into the Infobox is so much lighter than its source file? KalHolmann (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Why? Because that's one of the items I corrected and I mentioned that in the photo file. It was a very dark picture and often we have to tweak things to make them more visible to readers. This must be done with many photos no matter what subject we are dealing with. The fact the lighting was poor in the original was one of the reasons it was not a good pic for the infobox. The cropping issue was the other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
It reminds me of the O.J. Simpson mugshot that Time magazine famously altered to score a racist point. Of course, they darkened, rather than lightened, the image. So there's that. KalHolmann (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Look, if you don't like it then remove it. I did my best to make it look like it was taken in sunshine rather than a basement with a flickering candle; to bring out details that were hidden in shadow. I don't do things to score points nor do I like any insinuation that it was done for that purpose. I do everything here to best serve our readers. You may have an agenda but I don't. I don't boast that I'm in the top 10 edits in anything on wikipedia like you do, because I don't care. That's not why I'm here. I think we're about done here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
"If you don't like it, then remove it." that might not be a bad idea; there's no value to editing a professional shot, and I'm sure we can find plenty of other appropriately licensed shots. Eganist (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Then go for it Eganist. Dig 'em up and put 'em up. Professional shots get edited all the time as they have since the time of the dark room and how long you leave the pic in the solution. Usually we don't get "professional" photos here since they are under copyright. We get someone with a telephoto lens that didn't open up the aperture wide enough. We had someone complain about the photo that was in the infobox so I did my best to find and make something better that fit the parameters of what works best for our many tennis player articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
KalHolmann, are you seriously trying to suggest something about Fyunck(click)'s motives? As if the picture to the right makes her look more like a white person? This is just laughable now. Taking sensitivity to the extreme. Vivexdino (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
KalHomann are you serious...Mcelite (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Google image search finds 99 matches for the photo on the left, posted on an equal number of websites internationally. Some of the pictures, for whatever technical reason, are distorted horizontally. Yet not one has been brightened. Only Wikipedia finds it necessary to visually deemphasize the reality of Naomi Osaka as a woman of color. KalHolmann (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
A few thoughts. a. there is no "Wikipedia"--there's various editors. b. it is probably worthwhile to get an expert (or two) on photos and lighting and whatnot, to figure out what is edited and what isn't. c. that blog is lousy, just lousy--just a dude making a comment without much explanation. d. let's not throw around the term "political correctness", which is just a cudgel. e. it is very worth while figuring out what is happening with the photos, and the OJ comparison is valid. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
KalHomann the lighting isn't a huge difference at all. She still has her tan brown skin obviously showing that she is of mixed heritage. The image is in very good condition and I could care less if it was when she had her tan or when she didn't. Even if a better photo was used that showed her with lighter skin because it was taken during her off season I feel you would complain and say that the picture was picked because of her complexion and not the quality of the photo.Mcelite (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Mcelite, obviously people disagree on whether it's a huge difference. And please AGF: "I feel that..." violates AGF, and it really doesn't mean anything. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mcelite: I'm not complaining about the picture. I'm complaining about Wikipedia doctoring the image to suit a particular point of view. KalHolmann (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay KalHolmann I don't think it was doctored to suit a particular point of view. Honestly in my opinion it looks more defined with more light, but if it's that huge of a issue then maybe the original should be used if possible at all. The background was also lightened. I don't think this was done out of racism but to provide more detail and I think some are being very over sensitive about it.Mcelite (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
KalHolmann, you just said "Only Wikipedia finds it necessary to visually deemphasize the reality of Naomi Osaka as a woman of color." I think I just lost a few brain cells reading that. I'm officially done. Vivexdino (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Vivexdino I'm sorry for your loss, and we'll just have to do without you then. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Use original photo, the version that's uncropped and unretouched. It offers better composition; the arms/hands are not cut off; and it does not look washed out / manipulated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo part two[edit]

I also enjoy photography and photo editing. I found that the original of the above image was not under-exposed – the whitest part of her dress is white – therefore the skin tones and the hair colour are correct. What I've done is to lighten the background, so the picture is brighter but the skin tone is unchanged. I've also done a less radical crop so that the whole of the arm is shown. Scolaire (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any point in reverting back to an image that had not gained a consensus in this discussion. I sincerely hope it wasn't just sour grapes. Scolaire (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman:, can you confirm that when you said "use original photo" you meant this one and not this one? And if so, are you agreeable with my edit of it? Scolaire (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not a question of sour grapes. The original was weak but fine. I saw the one you put up but had been reverted. It was far worse as it was compared to the original. I tried to fix it by brightening and cropping, and when it was finished I thought, and so did multiple others, that it was now better than the original. Now it's back to looking like it was filmed by candlelight in a cavern, and it's not cropped enough. I have no problem going back to the way it was before mine and your edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
You can bet this infobox photo will change on a regular basis. They almost always do. For a long time it was a different picture. Then it changed. Then in April it got changed by a new user to the pic you like, but in gigantic format. It got fixed but then was change back to a previous version. Then it got changed to the version I found it in. I thought maybe I could do better with an older attempt. Some here didn't agree with my fixes and I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with KalHolmann and his nasty comments and not assuming good faith. So I went back to the version I found it in. The version you tried to put up had been removed before by other editors, and now by me. I think it's inferior to the way I found it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Edit-warring is not the way to go about it. You could have raised your concerns here, or done a straight revert back to your version and then discussed here. That awful picture you reverted to was not the "original". The other image was in the infobox, and stable, from 5 April until 9 September. that other image was added the same day, and lasted less than three days. The 5 April edit didn't even replace the 2015 image, it replaced a different, 2016 image. There is a very real danger that Wikipedia will be accused of racism if we keep changing the image at the top to a lighter-skinned picture. Scolaire (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Then don't edit war... I'm not. The original I was talking about was the original state I found it in. I gave the details of how often it will change and continue to change. And that racism danger is a load of crapola. It's a question of sun or shade. The way I found it was the original snapshot also. It was simply taken under sunlight which I attempted to do with that crummy pic. Ok, so some didn't like it, and that's fine. I didn't mind if it got reverted to how I found it, and you shouldn't either. It'll get changed about 20 more times in the next year. This pic has also been used. It was also this way for awhile. That's a better pic than your proposal. Although I assume you might protest that the sun on her left leg is some sinister plot to lighten her skin, so we'll have to crop that out Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think that that picture is far better than any of the others. I suggest we change back to that; it will save endless circuitous arguing about light and dark, sunlight and shade. Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hence our difference of opinion. We would need a discussion with a list of choices of all the photos to determine which to use, and even that won't hold because new pics will be uploaded all the time and used by the next editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Fine. In the meantime the default image should be the last stable image, i.e. the one that was there for five months rather than the four that were there for between a few hours and a few days. That just happens to be the one in the current version of the article. Since you say you don't mind if your edit gets reverted, I will expect you not to edit-war to change the image in future. But of course you should feel free to open an RfC with a list of choices if you want. Scolaire (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
You know something... you and your "edit-war" delusion is getting old quite fast. Knock that baloney off and try to be part of the solution. If I find a new pic I will change it, just as others have done. You idea of stable is also strange. The timeline is:
  • 2014 - no pic for 4 months.
  • Nov 2014–Nov 2016, Photo 1
  • Nov 2016–April 2018, Photo 2
  • April 2018-Sep 2018, your so called "stable image" Photo 3 (Scolaire favorite)
  • Sep 7-Sep 8, Photo 4 (really poor image, even worse than Scolaire favorite)
  • Sep 8 Scolaire changes it back to their own favorite, Photo 3
  • Sep 8, changed back to Photo 1
  • Sep 8–Sep 10, Photo 5, the image I first noticed
  • Sep 10, back to Photo 3
  • Sep 10-Sep 12, back to Photo 5
  • Sep 12, I listened to a post and tried to fix Photo 3
  • Sep 21, Scolaire tried a fix of Photo 3
  • Sep 21, I went back to how I found it, Photo 5
  • Sep 21, Scolaire posts edit-war delusion
  • Sep 21, changed to Photo 3
  • Sep 21, Scolaire posts 2nd edit war delusion
There could always be a pic I missed in looking at all the edits, but the most stable versions are Photos 1 and 2. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the timeline. To address my "delusion" first. I made a bold edit, adding a new version of the then current image, believing it would resolve the issue, with an edit summary that linked to this discussion, where I set out my reasons for thinking that. You reverted on sight. You didn't say anything on the talk page. A few hours later you reverted again. Again, you didn't post to the talk page until after I had re-opened the discussion. That is edit-warring. It is low-level; it is not a 3RR violation; but it is edit-warring. Your attitude in the discussion suggested that you might continue to revert, so I asked you not to.
Now to some of your "delusions": (1) I never used the phrase "most stable". I said "last stable image". As your timeline shows, the image was changed ten times in 14 days. The last image that had any kind of stability was photo 3. If the image is going to be reverted, it should be reverted to the most recent stable version. That's a well-established Wikipedia convention. "The way you found it" is not a baseline for anything. (2) Photo 3 is not my favourite. I'm not especially fond of it at all. I've already said that my favourite is Photo 2. I suggested we agree to go back to that, but while on the one hand you think that anybody should be allowed to change the image at any time, on the other you seem to think that two people agreeing to add an image is anathema – that it "would need a discussion with a list of choices of all the photos to determine which to use." So we seem to be stuck with Photo 3. Tant pis! (3) I have never at any time suggested that a new picture could not be added, by you or anybody else. My only issue is with reverting to an image that has been shown to be problematic.
I have remained civil through all of this. I have not used words like "baloney" and "crapola". I would ask the same courtesy of you. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Update her ethnicity[edit]

She is half Japanese and half Haitian with an American passport. Please update accordingly. Nfaustin (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This has already been discussed see "Representing Haiti Section" Her ethnicity is mentioned in her article.Mcelite (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC about nationality / ethnicity in the lead[edit]

Should the lead describe her as an American and/or a Haitian tennis player, or only as a Japanese tennis player? IffyChat -- 17:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Options to choose from (full wording details can be discussed separately):

  1. Japanese only
  2. Japanese and American
  3. Japanese and Haitian
  4. Japanese, American and Haitian
  5. American only
  6. Not describe her as "x" or "x and y" or "x, y and z", but have a short sentence stating her place of birth, her parentage and her residence – see here, where the wording is: "Naomi Osaka is a professional tennis player who represents Japan in competition. Born in Osaka to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, she has lived in the United States from an early age." (added by Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC))

Survey[edit]

  • Support 1 as this is how the vast majority of RS describe her, and it's the only country she's represented as a tennis player. IffyChat -- 18:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    To add to my opening comment, I oppose all the other options per WP:ETHNICITY. I weak oppose 2, 3 and 4 as they clutter the lead with too much information that isn't directly relevant to her notability. I strong oppose 5 and 6 as they're the literally supporting the opposite of why I support option 1. The RS primarily describe her as Japanese, only adding other countries when it's relevant to the article, so adding them to the lead is WP:UNDUE. Has anyone come up with a reason not to describe her as Japanese? IffyChat -- 08:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    Because Japanese on its own doesn't describe her? Because she has a Haitian father and US citizenship? And what is this "majority of RS"? There are highly reliable sources (Washington Post, Boston Globe. Guardian and at least six others, as well as two interviews and a tweet from Osaka herself) that describe her as other than just "Japanese". Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    I don't object to a 1+6 option if the lead is expanded, but 6 on its own completely ignores that her claim to notability has been as a Japanese tennis player, which should be in the lead. IffyChat -- 16:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    Her claim to notability has been as a tennis player representing Japan. Option 6 would state that in the first sentence – see here. --Scolaire (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    Her notability is as a Japanese tennis player'. It would make sense to put it in the first sentence, but actually #6 says nothing about what exact sentence or the exact wording. You give an example but it is not the only way #6 could be written. Haitian father could certainly be written as Haitian born father (since he is Haitian-American) and Japanese born mother. The details would have to be worked out later if it got adopted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Option 6 had a link to this version, but nobody seems to have read it, so I have now stated the exact wording. Not sure how you've established that her notability is as a Japanese player rather than Haitian-Japanese or any of the other permutations, or why we're having an RfC if that is already established. She's notable for her tennis, and she represents Japan; that much can be unambiguously stated. Scolaire (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1 Infobox links to official website, where her profile states simply: "Nationality – Japanese." KalHolmann (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • We use citizenship to determine this on Wikipedia, not nationality. See my comment below. - R9tgokunks 19:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@R9tgokunks: Since you replied without answering my question, let me repeat it: Please point me to the relevant policy or guideline upon which you base your assertion. KalHolmann (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Basic encyclopedia editing. It's not encyclopedic to not include that she isn't also American alongside being Japanese. We aren't beholden to follow the definitions of tennis agencies when we have our own way of editing encyclopedically. - R9tgokunks 19:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@R9tgokunks: "Basic encyclopedia editing" is an evasion. I asked for a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Evidently you cannot (or perhaps will not) provide one. KalHolmann (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no evasion. It is a grave mistake to merely include that she is just Japanese. Factually, this is simply false. She was raised and lives in America with American citizenship, and, for what it's worth, doesn't speak Japanese fluently. If I was Ugandan and I registered with the Korean tennis association but wasn't raised there or lived there, and didn't even speak the language fully, it would be misleading to say in a lede that I was merely Korean - R9tgokunks 19:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@R9tgokunks: Why do I get the feeling that you're making up these editing rules as you go along? KalHolmann (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Possibly because you can't comprehend what I have been saying... I don't know. Maybe I haven't been clear. I've stated that same reasoning a few times now, I'm not sure you've been paying attention... Also, I have been editing here for almost 13 years and It seems you've only been here for about a year. I've been here long enough to know that omitting information is just a mistake and invites trouble for years to come from persons with motives while editing, which is common. - R9tgokunks 20:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1 - Though this should have waited until there was more distance from the social media canvassing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • We use citizenship to determine this on Wikipedia, not nationality. See my comment below. - R9tgokunks 19:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
      No we do not. That is not some Wikipedia policy. There is also no reason the continually add this comment to every post that you disagree with. That could be seen as disruptive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 Support 1 - Saying she is a "Japanese tennis player" primarily refers to the fact that she is registered with the Japan Tennis Association, not her nationality or citizenship. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I agree that it should be mentioned in the lead that she is Japanese and American, but I don't think it is accurate to literally say "she is a Japanese and American professional tennis player." That would imply she represents the United States in addition to implying she has citizenship, which is not true. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Switching my vote to Option 6, as this is basically what I suggested below anyway. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 Support 2- if it wasn't clear enough. I feel that excluding her American citizenship is a grave error. She was raised and lives in the U.S. and has dual Japanese and US citizenship.- R9tgokunks 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2, she has dual citizenship (Japanese and American). She was born in Japan but has lived in US since she was 3.[2],[3] Haitian is obviously significant as well but it doesn't appear she's lived there and she apparently does not have Haitian citizenship, so I think Haitian makes more sense in the early life section explaining her father is from Haiti, while Japanese and American makes sense in the lead.DynaGirl (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2. The lead should mention her dual citizenship, and that as a professional tennis player, she most frequently (only?) represents Japan in these competitions. Take the case that once she retires, she will still be an American-Japanese dual citizen, but she will no longer be a Japanese tennis player. --Masem (t) 20:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    "Only". When she retires she would probably be like other players... is a retired Japanese professional tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    In nearly all standard readings, the phrase "Japanese professional tennis player" means "a profession tennis player with Japanese nationality" which is not true. She has American and Japanese nationality. That's why saying she represents Japan but has American-Japanese nationality needs to be clearly defined in the lede. --Masem (t) 23:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2. The lede summarises the article and as she has dual citizenship having been born in America it is relevant to be there. Saying 'Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997)[5] is an American born, Japanese professional tennis player' would be appropriate.Blethering Scot 21:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No that would not be appropriate in any way since she was born in Japan with Japanese nationality.Tvx1 22:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Scot, while I agree 2 seems to make the most sense, I think you'd need a different way to phrase this because she was apparently born in Japan. She has US citizenship and has lived in US since age 3. Maybe something like. "...is a Japanese and American tennis player who plays professionally for Japan." DynaGirl (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Per the governing bodies of tennis, she is not an American tennis player. She is a Japanese tennis player. She was born in Japan and plays tennis for Japan and also has citizenship in the USA. It can certainly be worded differently to get around that and add American or United States in the lead somewhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2 She was born in Japan and raised in the U.S. holding dual citizenship and she currently lives in Florida while representing Japan.Mcelite (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2: "Japanese-American" reflects best who she is, a dual citizen of Japan and the US who has lived in the US most of her life while representing her native country internationally in a sport. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Compromise approach, roughly equivalent to Option 6 (added): Open the 1st para as currently in the article: "Naomi Osaka is a Japanese professional tennis player. She first came to prominence ..." etc. Then add this sentence to the lead, perhaps at the end:
"Osaka has lived in the United States since age three; she is of Japanese-Haitian descent and is a dual US-Japanese citizen."
There's a section dedicated to Osaka's personal background, so it's appropriate to include a sentence to this effect in the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
No that's not entirely correct. She's not merely of Japanese descent. She is directly Japanese. She was born there to a Japanese mother and still holds that country's nationality and is a citizen of it. Descent is only correct for her Haitianness.Tvx1 13:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Added option 6. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Added #5 - American only. In the lead being asked about, should follow MOS:OPENPARABIO and give nationality. Race and finer details belong in the body. And from what I see, her primary nationality is that of the United States. I see she has dual citizenship, but the one she is using seems the U.S. one. Markbassett (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: thanks for pointing to MOS:OPENPARABIO, which advises: "The opening paragraph should usually state…Context (location or nationality)." Please note that our Infobox links to Naomi Osaka's official website, where her profile lists "Nationality – Japanese" and describes her as "the first Japanese woman to win the Indian Wells Masters in California (USA)." Does not Naomi Osaka's official website qualify as the definitive source in this matter? KalHolmann (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
User:KalHolmann - I am looking at more detailed secondary RS sources, where she appears to be an American based in Florida who is playing tennis for Japan. Nationality says for dual nationality, States may determine the most effective nationality. There is no official case, but it appears by residence and language that she has put the United States as the effective nationality. Of course, she may change or repudiate her United States nationality, but at the moment she seems raised and located in the U.S. and that seems the nationality she is using. Markbassett (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: So when she tells the world via her official website, "My nationality is Japanese," you say in effect, "No, dear, you are wrong. You're not Japanese. Let me mansplain this to you." Right. KalHolmann (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: so when she tells the world via Twitter, "I never know what to do when someone asks me where I’m from, I just say FL, because saying Japan starts an unnecessary conversation" ("Japanese, Haitian, and now a Grand Slam winner", Washington Post, 10 September 2018), what would you say to her then? Scolaire (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
User:KalHolmann - Japanese is the nation she plays for, signed up by her father since it would open up more opportunities. It isn’t her personal life. She tells interviewers she is from FL, and has lived in the United States since age 3, and is not able to speak Japanese. Nationality is a choice, but actions speak louder than one casual word. For WP we are looking for Nationality, and RS are portraying her heritage or nation of play as well as her citizenship... The RFC is trying to sort it out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, speaking of actions, she proudly played for Japan's Fed Cup team. That's clear expression of her nationality through action.Tvx1 16:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No shit! A player who's registered with the Japanese federation played for the Japanese team? ZOMG. She couldn't possibly have a Haitian father, then, or care about the US at all. Scolaire (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Tvx1 - her official Nationality ... is not going to be determined by what group she plays for. The legal standing has not been put to an official statement, but is obviously the United States. Just saying, the legalities are what they are. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
As demonstrated very clearly in the article, she has two official nationalities. She's legally both Japanese and American and has been since birth. After all while her father was born in Haiti, he had already become an American citizen when Naomi came about. In fact, he already was when met Naomi's mother. An official nationality is not simply determined by where one lives.Tvx1 12:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Tvx1 She has however only one effective and active Nationality, that of the United States. While one may have Citizenship in multiple places, by birth or Naturalization or purchase, her Multiple citizenship is in this case pretty simple from the facts to be: An American who plays tennis for Japan. (Should she marry some nice Japanese fellow and move there, or marry a nice Israeli, convert and move there, etcetera.... that could change things. But right now, she is simply American.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
No she has not. She has two effective and active nationalities. Japanese and American. And the activeness of her former has been used to register her with the Japanese Tennis Association. Her active Japanese nationality is the one she competes under in tennis and the one whose national teams she plays for. The place where she lives is in the only determinate factor. We all know one cannot live in two separate places simultaneously. In fact she barely mentions here American nationality in interviews. It seems you have little understanding of how nationality works.Tvx1 12:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Tvx1 Read Nationality on thru - it is legally determined by the nation she is participating in, living, paying taxes, speaks the language, and that is the United States. Nationality says nothing about being determined by one plays a sport, though one usually does tend to play where one lives. People here have mentioned individuals who play outside their nationality, Wiki even has lists such as List of foreign-born players in Spanish men's national basketball team, List of foreign Premier League players, Foreign players in the National Football League, etcetera. If you don't like the logic, fine -- but simply accept my input was the WP guidance calls for nationality, and that legally her effective Nationality is solely the United States. If you do not understand my input, feel free to ask. If you do not agree to it, feel free to make your own input or to try and convince me with WP Policy and facts other than where she plays. (As I started knowing that and have already old you it does not matter to Nationality.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I have done so multiple times and it contains nothing that support your claims. Nationality, which is simply an article not a guideline or policy, does not mention taxes or residence at all and only mentions language with regards to ethnicity. The basic stipulation of this article is that nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a sovereign state. Well, Osaka has had this legal relationship with two sovereign states since birth: US and Japan. Both states have the right to grant rights and impose restrictions on her. She has the right of return in both states. She received a passport from both, she is a full legal national AND citizen of both, and so on. There is also something called dual nationality. I don't understand why you are refusing to entertain that concept. Whether or not someone is a legal national of a sovereign state is determined by the state in question and not by Wikipedia or their users. We merely report what the reliable sources state. In this case we have reliable sources stating that two states have independently determined that miss Osaka is a legal national of theirs and both have even granted here full citizenship. Contrary to what you believe, it's perfectly possible for one to have multiple active legal nationalities. And this is an example of such a case.Tvx1 11:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
She is primarily notable as tennis player not as a person living in the US. And in her primarily notable activity she uses Japanese as her main nationality. She is registered by her father with the Japanese Tennis Association, she plays under the Japanese flag and she has played for the Japanese Fed Cup team. That's the most important thing here.Tvx1 13:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1 - Japanese only - this reflects the country she represents, the vast majority of sources I have seen, and also WP:OPENPARA. GiantSnowman 07:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I still prefer option 1 (she is Japanese! Born in Japan, represents Japan, described as 'Japanese' by sources, and in the 'Japanese' tennis player category...) but would be OK with option 6. GiantSnowman 16:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6. Saying "is a Japanese tennis player" (or "Haitian-Japanese" or "Japanese-American") made sense when the article was small and the lead was only 40 words long. The article has quadrupled in size in the last six months and it needed a proper lead. I wrote a proper, 180-word lead that summarised the entire article, including her place of birth, her parentage and her residency, which is covered at some length in the Personal life section. This was removed on the grounds that there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page, which meant that contributors could not see how this can be done without needing an either-or decision. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." This includes notable facts covered in the article about her Haitian father and her American residence. Scolaire (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The "vast majority of sources say she's Japanese" argument is a bit specious. See Washington Post (September 8, 2018): "Osaka, who is of Haitian-Japanese descent and was raised in the United States but plays for Japan", Boston Globe (September 09, 2018): "a 20-year-old of Haitian-Japanese ancestry who was raised in the United States but plays for Japan", Sky Sports (18/03/18): "The Haitian-Japanese", Tennis World USA (March 10, 2018): "the 20-year-old Haitian/Japanese", Tennis.com (March 08, 2018): "The Haitian-Japanese star", WTA Tennis: "the Haitian-Japanese said", Reuters (January 19, 2017): "the obvious talent Haitian-Japanese Osaka showed on court", The Guardian (9 Sep 2018): "when yet another journalist asked Osaka to explain her Haitian-Japanese heritage", Eurosport (18/03/2018): "The unseeded Haitian-Japanese player". --Scolaire (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • 6 See further elaboration below. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) I support however she is most frequently referred to by reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 as an excellent solution. Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 or alternatively option 1. She is primarily notable for being a professional tennis player, but also that she represents Japan. Because she has a dual citizenship, it might be wrong to claim that she is a "Japanese tennis player", so I find it more accurate to state that she is a professional tennis player who represents Japan. But the info about she being of Haitian descent or that she has a dual citizenship should not be included in the opening paragraph per WP:ETHNICITY. Mentoz (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    Just so I'm clear on this answer. No. 6 says "Born in Osaka to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother"... yet you say the info about her being of Haitian descent should not be in the lead. So is this a partial agreement with No. 6 since saying her father is Haitian seems to me to be obviously saying she is of Haitian descent? I'm trying to think of other notable tennis players or bios that talk about their parentage in the lead section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, I didn't notice that fact, I only commented on the first sentence. As far as I interpret the guidelines for WP:MOSBIO, there is a difference between the opening paragraph of the lead and the lead as a whole. The option 6 should be tweaked a little, but that she is of Haitian descent and has a dual citizenship can very well be included in the lead, though not in the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph doesn't have to be more than a couple of sentences, and should include what she is most notable for (professional tennis player who won a Grand Slam and is the first Japanese player to do so). Mentoz (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    Here is an example of what the lead could be tweaked into. Though I didn't change any of the wording in the current lead, I only moved what I feel is most important into the opening paragraph. The info about her descent and dual citizenship can from my point of view be written in the second paragraph of the lead. Mentoz (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • 6 kinda. The lead should say: Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ, Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a professional tennis player. She was born in Japan to a Japanese mother and Haitian father, and the family immigrated to the US when she was three years old. She is registered with the Japan Tennis Association." It is wordy but people don't always fit into simple boxes. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 3 or Support 6. „Her father is Haitian and her mother is Japanese” or „Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player” or „Japanese-Haitian professional tennis player” in the lead. Famous Japanese sports stars with mixed backgrounds have that kind of information in their Wikipedia leads:
Mashu Baker (Olympic gold-medal winner in judo), born in Japan, Japanese mother and American father. His lead on Wikipedia:
„Mashu Baker or Matthew Baker (ベイカー 茉秋 Beikā Mashū, born 25 September 1994 in Tokyo), is a male Japanese judoka. His father is an American. His parents divorced when he was little and was raised by his mother. He started judo at the age of 7. His favorite technique is Ouchi Gari. In 2015, he won the bronze medal in the Middleweight (90 kg) division at the 2015 World Judo Championships. He is currently ranked No. 1 in the world (as of 28 November 2016). He won the gold medal in under 90 kg division in 2016 Rio Olympics.”
Asuka Cambridge (Olympic silver-medal winner in the 4x100 track relay), born in Jamaica, Japanese mother and Jamaican father. His lead on Wikipedia:
„Asuka Antonio "Aska" Cambridge (ケンブリッジ 飛鳥 Kenburijji Asuka, born May 31, 1993) is a Japanese track and field sprinter who competes in the 100 metres and 200 metres. His personal best of 10.08 in the 100m gives him Japan's 9th fastest time. He is a two-time East Asian Games gold medallist and a relay bronze medallist at the World Junior Championships in Athletics. His father is Jamaican and his mother is Japanese. In the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Cambridge was part of the 4 × 100 m relay for Japan, which took the silver medal in the final.”
Abdul Hakim Sani Brown (track and field sprinter), born in Japan, Japanese mother and Ghanaian father. His lead on Wikipedia (beginning):
„Abdul Hakim Sani Brown (サニブラウン・アブデル・ハキーム Saniburaun Abuderu Hakīmu, March 6, 1999) is a Japanese athlete specialising in sprinting events. Sani Brown has a Ghanaian father and a Japanese mother. Sani Brown won the 100 metres at the 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics setting a championship record of 10.28 (−0.4) in the final.” Zor77 20:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Bernard Ackah - "Bernard Ackah (born April 9, 1972) is a German-born, Japanese-based Ivorian taekwondo practitioner, kickboxer, mixed martial artist and comedian."
Issey Maholo - "Issey Jose Maholo (マホロ一生 Maholo Issey, born 24 March 1985 in Tokyo) is a Japanese-born, Japanese-Congolese soccer player with American citizenship who plays as a goalkeeper for Hong Kong First Division League side Hong Kong FC."
Ado Onaiwu - "Ado Onaiwu (オナイウ 阿道, born 8 November 1995) is a Japanese footballer who plays as a forward for Renofa Yamaguchi in J2 League. He is the son of a Nigerian father and a Japanese mother."
[4] - Recent The Brown Daily Herald article. Zor77 14:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 Easily the best way to deal with these disputes. AIRcorn (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 addresses the issue without sacrificing clarity and accuracy in the process. -- ChamithN (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2 Was born in Japan, is a professional player that represents Japan, and has dual citizenship in the States.Mcelite (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC) – Note: Mcelite has already !voted here. --Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2 with 6 as an acceptable back-up. The way it is written now (option 1) is at best, misleading and, at worst, false.LedRush (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1 primarly and Support 2 as well. The lead should mention the most important facts represented in the article. Regarding her nationalities, her Japaneseness is the most important one. That's the one of her two nationalities she actively represent in her sole notable professional activity: playing tennis. Her Americanness is a maybe with regards to ranking with the most important facts. But since we have cases of other sportspeople holding multiple legal nationalities being introduced with them it would only be fair to do so here as well. She does not hold Haitian nationality however but is merely of its descent. Therefore detailing this in the personal life/background section gives that its due weight. It's the exact reason why we have these sections in the first place.Tvx1 12:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 Normally, I feel the lead belongs in the open sentence. However, it is just too complicated for her to accurately describe it in one sentence. JDDJS (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't it state at least that she's Japanese-American due to her dual citizenship as WP has done for Stana Katic by stating that's she Canadian-American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowrose713 (talkcontribs) 20:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Yellowrose713: Um.... the whole RfC above is about the lead so I'm moving this to the discussion section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 Clear and comprehensive. Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6. What someone above said about boxes. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Comment on validity of RFC[edit]

Naomi Osaka has dual American and Japanese citizenship. For the record, Naomi has no Haitian citizenship, which immediately disqualifies option 3 and 4. Also, for what it's worth, while she was born in Japan, she was raised in America and does not speak fluent Japanese, and she currently lives in America. This RFC goes against the common method of dealing with dual American citizenship on Wikipedia. Normally if someone has dual citizenship in one country and the US, that is mentioned straightaway in the lede. Omitting her American citizenship from the lede is tantamount to censorship.

For more examples of how dual citizenship is treated on Wikipedia see:


In sporting world articles, one can represent another country without having that citizenship as well, or something similar to Osaka. This is a common example, for instance, in FIFA. Examples:

  • Roman Neustädter, Russian , but played for Germany multiple times, but never was considered German, as he had no German citizenship.
  • Mário Fernandes, "Brazillian-Russian", born in Brazil, now represents Russia, has dual citizenship but does not speak Russian.


- R9tgokunks 18:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Footballers are less associated with their national team than in tennis. (e.g. Football is not a sport where "national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport.") Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Per KalHolmann, which Wikipedia policy or guideline are you citing? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this particular case is a little more complicated. You do have a point since when actress Emily Blunt gained USA citizenship her lead was changed to British-American actress. However in tennis she is registered as Japanese and you can only represent one country in any international event. She may be a Japanese-American individual walking down the street, but she is a professional Japanese tennis player. Milos Raonic was born somewhere else but is a Canadian tennis player. If you would also like somewhere in the lead paragraph for it to state she has United States and Japanese citizenship, that's reasonable though it's already in the section below. What seems strange would be Haitian-Japanese (although it's easily sourced). That would be like wikipedia saying Serena Williams is an African-American tennis player. That would sound weird... she is an American tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I submit that editors who misspell the word validity as "validitiy" [sic] in a subsection heading ought to be open to correction from another editor trying to be helpful, rather than reverting it and threatening to take it to ANI. KalHolmann (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  • @Fyunck(click): - yeah, but we aren't beholden to the definitions of the sporting world. We operate encyclopedically, including all information. For instance, If I was Ugandan and I registered with the Korean tennis association but wasn't raised there or lived there, and didn't even speak the language fully, it would be misleading to say in a lede that I was merely Korean. - R9tgokunks 19:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It might be misleading to say you are Korean but if you had never played tennis in Uganda, and the ITF allowed you to play for Korea, you would be a Korean professional tennis player. You would also have Ugandan citizenship, but you would be a Korean tennis player. You could always word it as a professional tennis player representing Korea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
That would still omit the Ugandan citizenship from the lede. it's just not factually sound. - R9tgokunks 20:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It is factually sound if it is somewhere else in the article. Some people might have 3 or 4 citizenships. We aren't required to list them all in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click):...Not sure what you're talking about? She only has 2 instances of citizenship... not "3 or 4". It's a simple fix as shown on other articles that I presented. And she only has dual citizenship. It would only be a problem if she had more than 2. Saying Japanese and American covers it. It's not that messy or complicated. - R9tgokunks 20:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
How would you word it? She is a Japanese tennis player with United States and Japanese citizenship? We don't do that with everyone, such as Angelina Jolie. We don't list her as a Cambodian actress just because she has two citizenships. Nor do we do the same with Kirsten Dunst who has German citizenship. We take it case by case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Saying Japanese and American covers it."

.

"Japanese and American."
- R9tgokunks 20:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not even close to covering it. No context at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The lede isn't for context. It summarises the article. see WP:LEDE. As you know many other articles on living persons use the same format I just used. - R9tgokunks 20:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
And many don't. I simply asked how you would word it and what you gave was useless. "Japanese and American"... that's the entire lead.... nothing else? How do you work that in the sentence to be factual? She is not an American professional tennis player. She is a Japanese professional tennis player with United States and Japanese citizenship. How would you word it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe that mentioned both her U.S. and Japanese citizen is the correct way of going through this.Mcelite (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman:, she has dual citizenship, which should be mentioned per MOS:OPENPARABIO. Also, she currently lives in the U.S.A., as she was raised there. - R9tgokunks 07:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Mention the dual citizenship elsewhere in the article - not in the lede. Funny how people only care about her being American when she wins... GiantSnowman 07:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Um. That's not a very erudite answer. So I'm not sure how long you've been editing here, but usually dual citizenship is mentioned in the lede when it's particularily notable. And people didn't really know about her until she won. See the graph at the top of this very page. That's a very ignorant statement for you to make. - R9tgokunks 08:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
        • She's been notable enough to have a Wikipedia article since 2014, and was one of the 32 best players in the world before the tournament; it's not like she came out of nowhere to win a Grand Slam. Sure, she's more popular now, but it's not like the facts surrounding this RFC changed in that time. IffyChat -- 08:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternate solution[edit]

Comment: I don't think the issue is with the first sentence. The issue is with the lead as a whole.

The first sentence should say "Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997)[5] is a Japanese professional tennis player." That paragraph should also mention she her career-high ranking and that she won the US Open.

Then, there should be a second paragraph that goes into her background, along the lines of "Born in Japan to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, Osaka moved to the United States when she was three years old. She has dual Japanese and American citizenship. Osaka began playing tennis in the United States at the age of ??. She began playing on the ITF Women's Circuit at the age of 16."

Then, there should be a third paragraph that goes into more detail in summarizing the highlights of her professional career as a whole (compared to the first paragraph). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Then why would we even have a personal section if all of it is going to be in the lead? It seems a little trivial to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Sportsfan she appears to be American, not Japanese, in nationality. Where does she live, pay taxes, vote, speak the language... Multi ethnic and multi citizenship is mentionable, but should not distort the bulk of the situation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but you're wrong. She does have a Japanese passport stating Japanese in the nationality field. She is primarily a tennis player and in the active she's primarily notable for, playing tennis, she clearly uses Japanese, a nationality she legally possesses, as her main nationality. She even played for their Fed Cup team.Tvx1 13:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Tvx and with dual citizenship, her United States passport would list Nationality United States ... and she could also get a nice passport from Monaco if she invests there. Passport is not a tie to Nationality Markbassett (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. Her nationality is not more important than the country she plays for. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Sportsfan77777 -- MOS:OPENPARABIO says to include her nationality which is United States, though many here want to say dual citizen of United States and Japan. The lead should also mention that she is a tennis player and currently plays for the JTA. The phrase "American tennis player for the Japanese Tennis Association" conveys the nationality and team, the phrase "Japanese tennis player" is misleading. Should also mention her Haitian-Japanese heritage -- in her case these are three different things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
MOS:OPENPARABIO says to include her nationality, but it doesn't say it has to be in the first sentence. The country she represents is more important than her nationality (regardless of whether her nationality is just Japanese, both Japanese and American, or just American), so that's what should go in the first sentence. It can be mentioned that she lives in the United States later on in the lead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I already wrote a proper, 180-word lead that summarised the entire article. Summarising the article includes summarising the Personal life section. That bit was reverted because of the discussion here. This was before the RfC was opened, by the way. That information ought to go back in the lead, otherwise it is not a proper summary of the article. Scolaire (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD says: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents They key words here are most important I would contend that her Haitianness and certainly Americanness, which is barely noted in the reliable sources, qualify as some of the most important content of the article. The most important information are her exploits in Tennis. Her being Japanese also meets the treshold since she's always identified with that in the sport and she has played for one of their national tennis team.Tvx1 14:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
What I wrote was a summary of what it says in the Personal life and family section, and her "Haitianness" and "Americanness" are important enough to merit a sizable chunk of that section, indeed of the article. As regards "reliable sources", I'll just paraphrase what I said in the survey above: The "barely noted in the reliable sources" argument is specious. See Washington Post (September 8, 2018): "Osaka, who is of Haitian-Japanese descent and was raised in the United States but plays for Japan", Boston Globe (September 09, 2018): "a 20-year-old of Haitian-Japanese ancestry who was raised in the United States but plays for Japan", Sky Sports (18/03/18): "The Haitian-Japanese", Tennis World USA (March 10, 2018): "the 20-year-old Haitian/Japanese", Tennis.com (March 08, 2018): "The Haitian-Japanese star", WTA Tennis: "the Haitian-Japanese said", Reuters (January 19, 2017): "the obvious talent Haitian-Japanese Osaka showed on court", The Guardian (9 Sep 2018): "when yet another journalist asked Osaka to explain her Haitian-Japanese heritage", Eurosport (18/03/2018): "The unseeded Haitian-Japanese player". --Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Part of the confusion here is coming from the fact that it is not even clear what this RfC is for. Some people are advocating for what should be in the very first sentence, or the very first two sentences. Others are advocating for what should be in the lead as a whole. So... what is this RfC even for? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the wording, it's for the lead as a whole... i.e. somewhere in the paragraphs in the lead section. Details, such as precise wording and exact location of the lead paragraphs, would be discussed separately. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Sportsfan, this RfC should not have been opened when it was opened in the way it was opened. I edited the lead at 09:33 (UTC) on 13 September in a way that avoided saying that she is an x-player or an x-y player or an x-y-z player by saying that she represents Japan, that she was born in Japan to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, and that she has lived in the US since she was small. That was reverted at 17:07, and Iffy opened the RfC at 17:36 with the wording, "Should the lead describe her as an American and/or a Haitian tennis player, or only as a Japanese tennis player?", which excluded my proposed wording. It was not until 09:28 on 14 September that I was able to add the "shouldn't describe her as an anything player" option, by which time eleven people had already !voted, without being aware that that option existed. Two or three of those have come back since then to either change to that option or add it to their previous choice. The remainder very likely don't know that they !voted in a flawed RfC, and they should be notified, so that they can review their choice if they want. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think a lot of people are confused. When I initially voted for option 1, I meant that the first sentence should say that she "is a Japanese tennis player" or that she "represents Japan." I didn't mean to exclude the fact that she lives in the United States or that she has a Haitian background from the rest of the lead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I left a short, neutral note on the talk pages of the six editors that had !voted/contributed before I added option 6 and hadn't contributed since, to let them know that another option was added. Scolaire (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Elaboration[edit]

This is clearly a situation where the usual formulation of the opening sentence ("George is a British comedian") is too simplistic. How about "Naomi Osaka is a Japanese and American professional tennis player who is registered with the Japan Tennis Association"? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Or how about "Naomi Osaka is a professional tennis player who represents Japan in competition. Born in Osaka to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, she has lived in the United States from an early age." There's no word limit here, and these are all relevant and verifiable facts that are dealt with in greater detail in the article body. Scolaire (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
That seems even better. My point is that Osaka's situation is too complicated to simplify to our usual opening sentence: "X is a Fooian y." — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I also prefer something like this. I suggested something similar above too. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that saying "Osaka is a Japanese and American professional tennis player who represents Japan" is accurate. I just don't like how saying she is a "Japanese player who represents Japan" sounds, even with American in the middle of that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I would disagree with this. She is Japanese, she is American, she is a Japanese professional tennis player, but she is not an American professional tennis player. She has never played for the United States. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree; that's also why I don't like this solution so much. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Another problem is that would this mean we'll have to change articles like Belinda Bencic? Her parents were born in Slovakia. They moved to Switzerland and Belinda was born in Switzerland. Belinda plays for Switzerland but also has citizenship in Slovakia. Are we going to change it to Belinda Bencic is a Slovak-Swiss tennis player and add info about her parents in the lead? Heck she reached world No. 7 (same as Osaka) so she is no slouch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't think so --- because she wasn't a long-term resident of Slovakia. Rebeka Masarova on the other hand, might deserve a more complicated explanation in the lead... (as the opposite case: someone who represents a country where they weren't born and have hardly lived in). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Osaka hasn't spent much time in Japan, and none in Haiti, yet those are potential additions to the lead. I'm thinking that whatever way this turns out it could very well open up a can of worms to many other players whose parents are not mentioned in the lead or who have multiple citizenships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Why "a can of worms"? Why should all Wikipedia biography articles not have a properly-written lead that includes salient facts on their lives? Why do all tennis player articles have to have a lead consisting of "Joe Bloggs is an x-ish professional tennis player. He won such-and-such an ATP tournament. On 7 July 2014 he reached a career high of no. 11 in the world rankings"? Why do you think the whole Wikipedia project is threatened when this standard-format lead is changed in one article to refer to something the whole tennis world is talking about? Have you even tried googling "naomi osaka haitian"? If you were to get similar numbers or quality of results for "belinda bencic slovakian" or "rebeka masarova slovakian", then of course the leads of their articles should be edited accordingly. But you don't. Naomi Osaka is a special case – as shown by multiple stories from reliable news media, this talk page, and the famous social media campaign, not to mention the woman herself – and there is no justification for shoe-horning her into the off-the-rack lead that you think all tennis player articles should follow. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It becomes even more confusing when the country of birth ceases to exist. What would we do for instance with Martina Hingis? Should we introduce her as a Czechoslovak-Slovak-Swiss tennis player? Or what about Byron Black. Do we put him as a Rhodesian-Zimbabwan tennis player? I'll reiterate that MOS:LEAD instructs to make it a summary of the most important facts presented in the article. Not everything you can think off. I'll maintain that here Haitianness is not one of the most important facts with regards to her only notable professional activity: playing tennis.Tvx1 16:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
But you're just repeating the same things over and over without even looking at the responses! Her Haitian ethnicity is important. It's important to her and it's important to the media. What we should do with Martina Hingis and Byron Black is write good articles with good leads that say things that are relevant and verifiable, not use them for bizarre OSE purposes. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
We do have to look at people case by case and not every tennis bio looks the same. But people are always pointing at precedent and this will be one of those that a finger aims at. A couple of things here. This is very current news so more has been made of her ethnicity then might be done in say, a year or so. Your interpretation of what's important in a tennis bio is not everyones. Yes we summarize in the lead the most important things about a player. By the way it is nice to see someone using the correct term "lead" at wikipedia. But we don't look at each subsection and take the most important things from each subsection. Otherwise we might have her racket string tension in the lead. 99% of this article is not about her parents heritage, and I'm not sure it's important enough for the lead.
She is notable for tennis, for things shes done on the court, and the focus of the lead should be on that notability. It should summarize her name, the country she represents or lives in, and her biggest accomplishments on the court. Most players don't have all that much as far as family heritage in the bios, but when they do we try and expand the personal section or early life section to accommodate that aspect of their lives. That was done for Naomi Osaka. A passerby might think, well she was born in Japan and plays for Japan, what's the big deal, that's like most players. They don't realize she's lived most of her entire life in the US or is a US citizen, yet still plays for Japan. Because of that her personal section was expanded. It might even warrant mentioning her US citizenship in the lead. That's why we are all here. But talking about her ethnic background and her parentage in the lead seems far and away trivial to me in that section. It is not one of the most important facts represented in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly what I have been trying to point out. It's important enough to mention somewhere in this article, bit it's not one of the most important facts represented in the article.Tvx1 20:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
A passerby might think, well she was born in Japan and plays for Japan, what's the big deal, that's like most players. They don't realize she's lived most of her entire life in the US or is a US citizen, yet still plays for Japan. It's the passerby that the lead is aimed at. WP:LEAD says "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. The lead is the first thing most people will read on arriving at an article." Most people will see the image, or will have seen a photo elsewhere, and say, "She's mixed race, how come it just says Japanese?" You're saying to those people, "you'll have to read the article if you want to know that, we're not going to spoon-feed you." That's against WP:LEAD. I really don't understand the determination to keep this short sentence out of the lead. I can't see how it unbalances the lead or harms the article. Bear in mind that before I edited the lead it didn't give an overview of her tennis career, it only said that she had won the 2018 US Open. Considering that, the "her tennis career is the only important thing" argument rings a bit hollow. Scolaire (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Again no, the lead is not for the passerby it's for summarizing the most important aspects of notable tennis player Naomi Osaka. The average passerby may also not realize that player was injured and changed to a special brand of racket to compensate, yet that would not be included in the lead. I'm not saying you don't make good and interesting points, but you are saying them as if they are fact or ironclad, and they are not. They are your opinion just as others are my opinion of what's the most important things to include in the lead. What you added was pretty good, it certainly needed more info. But not every single thing you added was good. I actually kinda like the way it sits right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It would unbalance the lead because it would put undue emphasis on things which are not the most important facts presented in the article. There is no wikipedia policy forcing us to cram every sort of national identity in the lead of articles on people.Tvx1 12:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Again the two of you are telling me what is important and what is not. How about you list the things in the article in order of importance? The section on her ethnicity/nationality has 330 words, the section dealing with her win over Stosur has 76 words, the sentences (not even a full paragraph) about her first WTA final has 77 words, the paragraph about winning the US Open has 72. So the small piece of text that was removed from my edit to the lead summarised article content that was far greater than everything else in the lead put together. Yet Fyunck(click) tells me that adding the last three to the lead was good, but adding the first is not good because it's "not important". This talk page is at 150,000 bytes – up from 640 bytes at the beginning of the year – and virtually all of it concerns her ethnicity/nationality. How can you say that it's not important? Tvx1 says, There is no Wikipedia policy forcing us to cram every sort of national identity in the lead of articles on people. Nobody has said anything about cramming anything into anything. Can you point me to the policy that says that a substantial section of the article should not be properly and succinctly summarised in the lead if two of the article's owners decree that it's "not important"? Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Where did any of us claim it's not important?? I literally wrote that it's important, but not one of the most important facts. Her Japaneseness is one of the most important facts, her Americanness is a maybe, her Haitianness is not. And there are much more that 72 words on her US Open campaign.Tvx1 23:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
There are 72 words on the US Open final. Her wins over Siegemund, Glushko etc. are not in the lead – only the final. Even adding them only gives another 100 words, as against 330 for her ethnicity/nationality. Now, you've just "literally" written that "it's" important, and followed that with "her Haitainness is not." Can I ask you again, what algorithm are you using to calculate the "importantness" of her "Japaneseness", her "Americanness" and her "Haitianness"? And please don't say reliable sources; I've cited plenty of sources (Washington Post, Boston Globe. Guardian and six others, as well as two interviews and a tweet from Osaka herself) that demonstrate the importance of the fact that her father is Haitian and she lives in the US, both to the media and to herself. And what exactly are the most important facts, after her 2014 win over Stosur, her first WTA final, winning Indian Wells, winning the US Open, and her no. 7 ranking? The lead is short enough that more important facts can be added, so what are your sixth, seventh and eighth most important facts? Her racket strings? Simply parrotting "it's not important" (sorry, "it's not the most important") is not a sound, policy-based argument. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you really impeccable of reading, because this getting very tiresome. This is what I wrote. Her Japaneseness is one of the most important facts, her Americanness is a maybe, her Haitianness is not. No where does that state It's important, her Haitianness is not. Please do not accuse me of having written things I have not. I have explained that her Haitianness is not one of the most important facts presented in the article and I stand by it. The most important facts are who she is, what her legal nationalities are, what here notable activity is, what her highest ranking is and what her major achievements were. Her Haitianness belongs in the personal life/background section. In fact that's why we have such a section in the first place. To provide background to her identity. The sentence in the lead on her US Open win is not just a summary of the final, even though it's mentioned, but of her whole US Open campaign. You don't win a tournament by winning the final alone. In this case she won 7 matches to lift the trophy. It demonstrates just how rash the lead is supposed to be. It merely mentions she won the tournament.Tvx1 12:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
You're right, this is getting tiresome. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Fyunck(click) "She has never played for the United States" just a side note that's a bit off. Seems obvious she was playing USTA tennis before age 15 joining the JTA. e.g. 2009 USTA 14’s Team Florida Challenge]. I don't think that matters for the lead of what she currently is, though if more exists about this then it might be a good start to her early career. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Interesting photo. She did go to school in the USA so she did play in Naples, Florida. However, to play as a junior or a pro the ITF gets involved and she did not play for the USA as a junior per the ITF. She did not play as a pro for the USA per the ITF. She did not play as a a pro for the USA per the WTA. But it looks like when you play for your high school team in Naples Florida, the USTA will thank you with a Team Florida t-shirt and a photo. I'm not sure it qualifies as more than that though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Correction[edit]

@Dlohcierekim: Please, fix caption of image: Osaka at the 2018 French Open, correctly: Osaka at the 2018 Nottingham Open. Cheers --Kacir 18:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC) / --Kacir 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kacir: was that not one of the dispted matters? why would one select his image?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
This image is already in the article, but the caption is wrong and needs fixing. IffyChat -- 18:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I see. Well let's get a consensus that that would be the correct caption and take it from there.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
There is need to get a consensus to remove obvious mistake? It seems to me misleading information will be next week in the article. --Kacir 19:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Per the source, that photo was taken at the "2018 Nottingham Open qualifiers." That change should be made since it is an obvious error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Check my work. Ping me if broke it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, just only note: Osaka as 3rd seeded didn't play qualifying. The photo was taken the day before starting singles draw during practice (she had vest).--Kacir 00:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going by what the original photographer had on flickr. He had it in the category of qualifying. He was probably watching qualifying and taking shots and also took photos of some players practicing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)